Copyright again ... potentially a serious problem.

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Eric Stevens, Nov 14, 2012.

  1. Eric Stevens

    Eric Stevens Guest

    1. Advertisements

  2. Eric Stevens

    sobriquet Guest

    "It's essentially an argument about using other people's stuff without their permission."

    I think they have it all backwards.

    It's essentially an argument about questioning the claim that people can
    own information as intellectual property and to what degree that is
    supposed to imply a monopoly on the reproduction and distribution of
    such information.

    What's really needed is regulations that ensure there is a fair system
    of financial compensation for those who contribute fresh content on the
    one hand, while simultaneously encouraging people to share information freely
    and indiscriminately (like on p2p networks).

    Imagine how little progress there would be in science if each scientist had
    to figure out things from scratch and wasn't able to freely draw upon the results from their predecessors.

    Scientists invented the knowledge that allowed us to develop information technology and at the very core of modern information technology is
    the ease with which it allows people to share information.
     
    sobriquet, Nov 14, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Eric Stevens

    Alan Browne Guest

    The issue here appears to be the speed or ease at which work can be
    declared an orphan because the bar is set so low. Set a reasonable bar
    (that includes looking inside the image metadata for contact data and an
    absolute bar to removing such information) and perhaps there is the
    start of something useful.
    What's really needed is that people who use content don't steal it from
    other sites.
    Academic scientists receive salary, offices, labs, equipment, grants,
    slaves (students) and so on, often from the public purse, to pursue
    their research. Part of the their remit is to "publish, publish,
    publish." (And then there are the publishing houses making oodles oof
    of it, but that's another matter).

    If the scientist works for some company then you can be sure his
    research and results will not be available online at all.
     
    Alan Browne, Nov 14, 2012
    #3
  4. Eric Stevens

    sobriquet Guest

    That issue is beyond the actual reality of the way information
    finds its way on the internet these days.
    If I create a picture and share it (regadless whether I sell it
    or give it away), it can turn into a meme and thousands of people
    can be making modifications and distributing it online again,
    and those images can be further modified again and so on.
    That renders the whole ownership discussions completely
    irrelevant and moot.

    The people who have these discussions are still living in the analogue
    past where you had a clear distinction between centralized publishers who
    were responsible for reproduction and distribution (and copyright laws
    to protect them from unfair competition from other publishers) and
    consumers who could only consume content, but were more or less unable
    to modify it, reproduce it or redistribute it in any practical fashion.
    There is no stealing involved in p2p filesharing whatsoever. You
    might as well call if murder or rape if you are going to call
    it theft.
    But demonize filesharing all you want, it's merely copyright
    infringement and it's inevitable the day will soon come when
    copyright infringement will not just be legal, but it will
    actually be encouraged and it will be called "sharing
    information".
    But do we really need to have companies or money for some deep and
    fundamental reason?
    Maybe in the near future we can reproduce commodities with the
    same ease at which we can currently reproduce digital content.
    At that point the whole role of money as a universal substitute
    is completely redundant, because money only makes sense in a world
    where things are scarce.

    That's the whole idea of copyright nowadays, to artificially try
    to keep information scarce, while any teenager understands information
    is actually not scarce at all. So it's like proof that there are no limits
    to human stupidity to try and ignore the fact that everybody can easily
    share information and pretend that information is like a commodity that
    can't be easily reproduced and distributed (heck, it can even be
    modified, recombined with other pieces of information).

    All because supposedly people will stop creating new content when they
    can no longer rely on their traditional monopoly on the reproduction
    and distribution of their creations.

    The remix culture of the internet proves otherwise.
     
    sobriquet, Nov 14, 2012
    #4
  5. So, what, you plan to completely destroy the professions "musician",
    "songwriter", "arranger", "conductor", "novelist", "screenwriter",
    "director", "actor", all the craft jobs associated with film and TV
    production, and so forth? You think people will create art that takes
    hundreds of man-years of time, costing many millions (or hundreds of
    millions) of dollars, without some way to get the viewers to pay for it?
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 15, 2012
    #5
  6. Eric Stevens

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Mxsmanic, Nov 15, 2012
    #6
  7. Eric Stevens

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Why is speed or ease an issue? If the copyright holder shows up, he still gets
    paid.
    What's really needed is copyright that lasts for only 14 years, instead of
    almost eternity, then many of these problems go away.
     
    Mxsmanic, Nov 15, 2012
    #7
  8. Eric Stevens

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Their work is already being used illegally, and they have not been destroyed.
    As long as the major uses are paid for, there's no problem.

    And a lot of these artists have assigned their rights to corporations, anyway,
    so they get nothing even if someone pays for a license. A classic example is
    the software engineer, who receives only a temporary salary even when creating
    software that will bring in millions of dollars in royalties.
     
    Mxsmanic, Nov 15, 2012
    #8
  9. Eric Stevens

    Whisky-dave Guest

    Doesn't that depend on how you alter it or whether or not it is noticable.

    That's true in Dickens day there wasn't much chance of even photographing a book let alone scanning it in and emailing it.

    That's difficult to evaluate You, but a similar situation to libraries.
    If tehy are lending out books then I don't need to buy a copy.

    You label it nhow you want others to react to it.
    Theft is bad, borrowing is good.

    I don't think that day will come, and I dont; think it should either.


    That is slightly differnt in many ways.


    True but what is the reason for publishing why bother ?




    Some of our studetns in the past have worked for componies anbd we haven't been allowed to allow that studetns work to be made availble to others.
    Highly unlikely.
    Are we talking of the star trek universe here were there is no poverty ?
    Because everythingn is free ?
    No it's not.
    Most authors and muscians want as many people as possible to have their works, they don't normally want them to be scarce.


    Teeneagers understand little.

    So ?

    So work in the catering buisness supply me with free food.
     
    Whisky-dave, Nov 15, 2012
    #9
  10. Eric Stevens

    sobriquet Guest

    You missed this part?

    "What's really needed is regulations that ensure there is a fair system
    of financial compensation for those who contribute fresh content on the
    one hand, while simultaneously encouraging people to share information freely
    and indiscriminately (like on p2p networks). "
     
    sobriquet, Nov 15, 2012
    #10
  11. Eric Stevens

    Mayayana Guest

    | > There is no stealing involved in p2p filesharing whatsoever. You
    | > might as well call if murder or rape if you are going to call
    | > it theft.
    | > But demonize filesharing all you want, it's merely copyright
    | > infringement and it's inevitable the day will soon come when
    | > copyright infringement will not just be legal, but it will
    | > actually be encouraged and it will be called "sharing
    | > information".
    |
    | So, what, you plan to completely destroy the professions "musician",
    | "songwriter", "arranger", "conductor", "novelist", "screenwriter",
    | "director", "actor", all the craft jobs associated with film and TV
    | production, and so forth? You think people will create art that takes
    | hundreds of man-years of time, costing many millions (or hundreds of
    | millions) of dollars, without some way to get the viewers to pay for it?
    |

    That seems to be a pretty good synopsis of the
    two views:

    Young people who don't know what it means
    to work for a living think that everything should be
    free. (It always has been for them, after all.)

    At the other extreme are James Cameron, Steven
    Spielberg, George Lucas, TV producers, the corporations
    that invent and market new bands, bestseller authors,
    etc. who like to call themselves artists and make a big
    deal about the presumed value of their creations.

    But much of what they're producing is essentially
    a business venture meant to profit by titillating some
    part of the public enough that those people will pay
    for the pleasure. In other words, it's entertainment,
    which is actually the opposite of art, insofar as art
    implies something edifying and entertainment is really
    just emotional masturbation. Art requires effort and
    attention. Entertainment is an escape from effort and
    attention.

    In between the two extremes in the copyright debate
    are people creating art, or at least trying to. An artist
    does it for its own sake and rarely makes money. Which
    is not to say that poverty is noble. It's just that art is
    not a business venture.

    Copyright is meant to serve the public by supporting
    creativity. (With the term creativity I'm assuming there's
    some artistic value involved and not just some kind of
    unique item.) The latest marketer-designed boy
    band aimed at vacuuming money from 12-year-old girls
    can hardly be called art.... Likewise with Cameron's Avatar,
    a silly, megahit version of Saturday morning cartoons....
    And the endless stream of romance novels and glib social
    commentary books. Do those people really deserve to
    make millions of dollars? Would society suffer without them?

    How do we decide how much creativity is worth? In
    the US it was decided awhile back by Disney lobbyists
    buying a Congressional vote when the Mickey Mouse
    copyright was due to expire.

    It seems that we have to come up with a clear distinction
    between art, entertainment and business before copyright
    law can really be fair to all involved... and before there can
    be any hope of appealing to someone like sobriquet to be
    honest and decent. He/she knows perfectly well, instinctively
    if not consciously, that much of the Hollywood machine is
    just sleazy manipulation for profit. That makes it very easy
    to rationalize theft. ...To blame either side exclusively would
    be missing the big picture.
     
    Mayayana, Nov 15, 2012
    #11
  12. Eric Stevens

    sobriquet Guest

    Ok, demonize filesharing as theft. I demonize such people who demonize filesharing as Nazi cockroaches. A little over the top, but likewise
    I think it's way over the top to accuse people of being thieves or
    parasites when all they are doing is reproducing information.

    What internet filesharing really boils down to is people who collect
    and exchange bitstrings. Things like 0010101110101100000011001, except
    usually the bitstrings are much longer.

    These bitstrings can be anything. Movies, software, music, text, pictures,
    etc.. But that doesn't detract from the fact that they are bitstrings.

    There can be no sensible definition of the public domain that doesn't
    include all bitstrings and there can be no sensible claim that people
    are free to share information (as claimed in the universal declaration
    of human rights) if it doesn't include all possible bitstrings.

    So what we actually need is a fundamental discussion about human rights
    and the freedom to share information first (in relation to the new
    reality of contemporary information technology like computers,
    smartphones and the internet) and after that has been settled, we
    can consider less fundamental issues like a system that ensures
    there is a fair and transparent financial compensation for those who
    are engaged in creative efforts (for instance by means of a tax
    on information that can be distributed to those who create new
    content in proportion to how popular their creations are).

    Like why do we have public libraries where everybody can consume
    information for free (if you read books at the library, even if you
    are not a paying member from that library)?
    The internet plays that same role in society of making information
    more accessible, for the benefit of contributing to raising the
    general level of knowledge and understanding among the population,
    except that the internet is way more efficient and effective as a
    library.
     
    sobriquet, Nov 15, 2012
    #12
  13. Eric Stevens

    Whisky-dave Guest

    But that part doens;t actually say anything meaningful.
    It's as meaningful as me saying poverty should be outlawed.

    How would you work out this financial compensation while you make 10s or 1000s of copies to share out ? Seems like purchasing or renting is the way to go.

    Also depends what you mean by sharing.
     
    Whisky-dave, Nov 15, 2012
    #13
  14. Eric Stevens

    Whisky-dave Guest

    Yes a spoilt rich kids, mummy and daddy pay for everything.



    They can put whatever value on them they like doens;t bother me.

    if I want to see what they've done then I prepared to pay to see it.


    Most people like both to some extent ?


    No idea, but most make money because of what they are peddling.
    If yuo do sonwthing thatc peole like surely you should get something back.



    That's not what I would call it.

    That's not quite all they are doping is it.

    So post you bank details including passwords and anyb other info it's just binary digits.
    So your not prepared to share yuor bitstrings are you.
    well that typical isn;t it.

    bank accounts....
    You really are clueless aren;t you.
    More meaningless talk.
    I pay taxes for library books.

    But peole won;t write those books and other bitstrings unless they getv somnething back, you don;t understand that because you're probbaly not created anythijng useful or wanted by others in your life.

    perhaps if yuo did you'd understand and there's little chance of that until your IQ gets into double figures
     
    Whisky-dave, Nov 15, 2012
    #14
  15. Eric Stevens

    Savageduck Guest

    We have been through your rationalizations at tedious length before.
    What you fail to address is, there is a big difference between
    "sharing", "dissemination of information", and "distribution" of an
    individually, proprietary, or corporately owned product or media file.

    Just because a legitimate method of commercial distribution can be via
    the internet, does not make unauthorized copying, and redistribution
    via P2P sites, and subsequent unauthorized use, any less immoral and
    theft.

    If a creator of the image, music, movie, etc. choses to protect their
    property, and states so, any unauthorized use is theft and
    exploitation. Those creative individuals and corporations have every
    right to be rewarded for their creative efforts regardless of your
    perception of their motives. Those files are far from being declared
    "public domain".
    As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, try making the same
    demand of a food vendor, restauranteur, food franchise, or farmer
    (individual or agri-business).
    ....or for that matter any manufacturer of any product, from your
    clothing to the table your computer sits on, or the materials they are
    fabricated from, and designs they dare to retain copyright of.

    Even with image files on the great majority of sharing sites, the
    ownership and sharing options are retained by the creator.

    For most truly "public domain" files creators would actually prefer
    some attribution and will let you know their feelings regarding that
    issue by including an appropriate statement in the copyright
    information field of the exif of their images.
    Consider that there is the simple honoring of a creator's request when
    they include a Creative Commons license to their work. I for example
    will use the CC "Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike" license
    notification. Read it, and try to understand it.
    < http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/deed.en_US >

    All you propose remains a rationalization for theft.
     
    Savageduck, Nov 15, 2012
    #15
  16. Eric Stevens

    Mayayana Guest

    | So what we actually need is a fundamental discussion
    | about human rights
    | and the freedom to share information first ....after
    | that has been settled, we
    | can consider less fundamental issues like a system that ensures
    | there is a fair and transparent financial compensation for those who
    | are engaged in creative efforts (for instance by means of a tax
    | on information that can be distributed to those who create new
    | content in proportion to how popular their creations are).

    So the world, for you, is a socialist amusement park?
    You have a human right to use everything in the world?
    You're not willing to pay for anything you use, but you
    claim you're willing to pay a tax for materials that others
    use? That's not intellectually honest. And why should
    everyone have to a creation tax? Why should I pay Lady
    Gaga to live as a millionaire just because some people
    like her music? I don't even listen to music. And I certainly
    wouldn't accept the case that her product enriches society.
    So I see no justification for the public paying her way.

    |
    | Like why do we have public libraries where everybody can consume
    | information for free (if you read books at the library, even if you
    | are not a paying member from that library)?

    Libraries do not make copies. They lend copies. We
    pay for those books with our taxes. Apparently you
    neither work nor pay taxes. In that case your parents
    are paying for your use of libraries. They are funded
    by the public and they buy the books that they lend
    out.
     
    Mayayana, Nov 15, 2012
    #16
  17. Eric Stevens

    sobriquet Guest

    Same reason everybody pays taxes to finance public libraries,
    regardless of whether they read books or not.
    Likewise we can have a tax on information to ensure there is
    a financial incentive for people to contribute new creations but
    not in a way that implies a monopoly on the distribution or
    reproduction of their creations.
    Everybody buys things and whenever you buy something, you pay
    taxes. Some of those taxes are used to finance things like public
    libraries and they might likewise be used to finance a system
    that ensures financial incentives for people who create new content.
    Where I live in the Netherlands, there is already a special tax
    on information to compensate for the fact that people are legally allowed
    to copy most things for personal use (books, movies, music, etc..),
    even when they download them from the internet from unauthorized sources.
    Now there is a lot that can be improved about that system (regarding
    transparency in particular), but I think that's the most sensible way
    to deal with the fact that it's virtually impossible for creators
    to impose a monopoly on the distribution and reproduction of creations
    once they have been made public (regardless of whether they were
    sold or given away).
    Research shows that people who obtain culture/information from
    unauthorized sources are actually the same people who spend the
    most money on culture/information from authorized sources.
    Just like public libraries stimulate an interest in books and
    are more likely to contribute to the profits from commercial
    bookstores rather than detracting from it.
     
    sobriquet, Nov 15, 2012
    #17
  18. Eric Stevens

    sobriquet Guest

    It seems your mind is a corporately owned product of some sort.
    If you were able to think critically and independently for
    yourself, you'd see through this obvious propaganda from the
    intellectual property mafia. Heck, we can't even seriously claim
    that we're living in a democracy, because people are brainwashed
    in school and by the media, rather than learning to think
    critically for themselves. So all this bullshit about voting
    for elected representatives in the government is just a
    phony show, while the government is actually a shady extension
    of corporate interests rather than a neutral institution that
    guarantees human rights.
    There is nothing immoral about the distribution and reproduction of
    information. You might as well call education immoral.
    Bullshit. Here, I'll create a bitstring 001001011111010000001110001.

    Now that's my intellectual property and I can go out on the
    internet to find people who have it on their computer and I can
    sue and harass them.


    They are public domain. My government actually grants people the freedom
    to copy such creations (music, video, books, pictures, etc..) for
    personal use, regardless of how their original creators feel about it.

    Yet, the difference between such commodities and information
    is that information can be duplicated indefinitely free from
    additional costs. If I have a single loaf of bread, unless
    I'm Jesus, I can't easily multiply it to supply a million
    loafs of bread to a hungry crowd.
    The difference being that physical tangible products like
    computers or articles of clothing are scarce because they
    can't be easily reproduced like information on the internet.

    You must be visiting the wrong sharing sites then.
    That is just bullshit. You can come up with any nonsense license
    you like, but whether people will take it serious is another matter.

    Most people just skip all that legal mumbo jumbo and press the OK
    button to accept a license without reading it, whenever they
    are confronted with that nonsense.
     
    sobriquet, Nov 15, 2012
    #18
  19. Eric Stevens

    DanP Guest

    What happened to "information is free"? Why tax it and who would decide who is a good artist and how much revenue they should get?

    BTW, some information is not free.

    The only people who deserve my money are the ones I like so it means the only way for my money to reach them is me buying their work.


    DanP
     
    DanP, Nov 15, 2012
    #19
  20. Eric Stevens

    sobriquet Guest

    So you're opposed to public libraries that offer free access to
    information?
    Free in the sense that anybody can go to the library and read a
    book there for free, instead of buying that same book in a bookstore.
    P2p sharing. So a bitstring going from one individual on the internet
    to another individual on the internet, so they both end up in
    possession of the same bitstring.
     
    sobriquet, Nov 15, 2012
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.